LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
PUBLISHED BY Project 39A National Law University, Delhi Sector 14, Dwarka New Delhi 110078
Published in January 2021 National Law University, Delhi 2021 All rights reserved
WRITING Gale Andrew Aishwarya Mohanty
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE Ashna D Harjaap Singh Ahluwalia Varsha Sharma
DESIGN Anuja Khokhani
INDEX
List of Contributors 2
Foreword 6
Methodology 7
Overview of Legal Developments in 2020 8
Highlights 9
Cumulative Figures on Persons Sentenced to Death 10
State-wise Distribution of Persons on Death Row 11
Death Penalty Cases 2020 12
Sessions Courts in 2020 13
Number of Death Sentences Imposed by Sessions Courts 13
State-wise Distribution of Death Sentences Imposed in 2020 14
Nature of Crimes for those Sentenced to Death by Sessions Courts in 2020 16
Death Penalty in Cases of Sexual Ofences 18
High Courts in 2020 20
Nature of Ofences in Confrmations and Commutations by High Courts in 2020 22
High Court Confrmations in 2020 26
High Court Commutations in 2020 27 High Court Acquittals in 2020 30
High Court Remitted Cases in 2020 31
Supreme Court in 2020 32
Nature of Ofences in Confrmations and Commutations by the Supreme Court in 2020 36
Supreme Court Confrmations in 2020 40
Supreme Court Commutations in 2020 42
Analysis of Supreme Court Decisions in 2020 43
Mercy Petitions 48
Death Warrant 49
Executions 2020 51
Case Timeline 52
Case History 54
Curative Petitions 55
Mercy Petitions 55
Post-mercy Writ Proceedings 56
Death Warrants 56
Legislative Developments 58
Final Observations 59
Corrections to Annual Statistics 60 FOREWORD
This is the ffth edition of the Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report published by Project 39A at National Law University, Delhi. Over the course of fve years, the law and the implementation of the death penalty in India have seen signifcant changes.
2020 saw the only execution in these fve years, with the execution of Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar on 20th March 2020. They were convicted and sentenced to death for the gangrape and murder of a woman in Delhi in December 2012.
In 2018, the highest number of death sentences was imposed in a single year over two decades. 2019 and 2020 saw a decrease in the number of death sentences imposed, with 2020’s drop a result of the pandemic’s impact on court functioning. However, the proportion of cases of sexual violence has steadily increased over the years, now constituting 65% of cases in which death sentence was imposed by trial courts in 2020. This indicates that sexual violence is increasingly infuencing the implementation of the death penalty in India.
Corresponding to this shift, these fve years have seen the legislative expansion of the death penalty for non-homicide ofences of sexual violence. Amendments to the Indian Penal Code in 2018 and to the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act in 2019 introduced the death penalty for non-homicide child sexual abuse. In addition, both Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh introduced bills that imposed the death penalty for non-homicide rape of adult women.
Exceptional contributions by Ashna D (IV year law student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi) as well as Harjaap Singh Ahluwalia and Varsha Sharma and (II and V year law students at National Law University, Delhi respectively) were instrumental in the development of the new database and in compiling the statistics for the present report.
None of this would have been possible without the eforts of Varsha Sharma and Pritam Raman Giriya (V year law students at National Law University, Delhi) who were instrumental in the development of the directory and in the publication of annual statistics reports since it was frst published in 2017. Lubhyathi Rangarajan, Peter John, Poornima Rajeshwar, Rahul Raman, Neetika Vishwanath and Preeti Pratishruti Dash have played key roles in authoring previous editions of the report.
6 METHODOLOGY
Over the course of fve years, we have made signifcant improvements to our recordkeeping and analysis processes. In 2020, we developed a consolidated database to record and track death sentences imposed since 2016, along with a manual that would guide data entry and ensure uniformity in classifcation. This has resulted in changes in the statistics from previous editions, particularly relating to the nature of ofence. A comprehensive list of changes made has been provided at the end of this report.
Our methodology for data collection has remained consistent across these fve years. We track news reports of death sentences being imposed by trial courts across online news outlets in English and Hindi. These numbers are then verifed against judgments uploaded on High Court and district court websites.
The High Court websites serve as a verifcation of the data, allowing us to track appeals fled against death sentences imposed by trial courts for which news coverage may not be available. The High Court websites remain the most accurate method of tracking, as every death sentence imposed by a trial court must be confrmed by the High Court under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Nearly all websites are functional and allow the accurate tracking of death sentence matters.
We also send RTIs as a second level of verifcation. But in 2020, we only sent RTIs to Home Departments and High Courts of four states for which the High Court website proved unreliable in identifying the status of death sentence cases. We have consistently found that delayed responses and repeated transfers of applications to diferent departments prevent the extensive use of this data.
The lack of coordination between diferent ofcial sources afects the accuracy of compiling even simple data like this, and speaks to larger concerns with data on the criminal justice system in India. Notwithstanding these limitations, we are confdent that this report presents a fairly comprehensive dataset on the death penalty in India in 2020.
7 OVERVIEW OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2020
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts all over the country were limited in their functioning. This resulted in a drop in the number of death sentences imposed in 2020, with 77 death sentences imposed by trial courts, involving 76 prisoners, compared to 103 sentences in 2019. However, this is not the lowest number of death sentences imposed in a year. As per available data, this took place in 2001 at 66 death sentences imposed.
About 62% of the death sentences this year were imposed before the lockdown was frst announced. The 48 death sentences imposed in the frst three months of 2020 were more than double the number of death sentences imposed in 2019 in the same period, which saw 20 death sentences imposed in that time. Even 2018, which saw the highest number of death sentences imposed in two decades, had far fewer death sentences imposed, with 27 imposed in the same time period.
Due to the impact of the pandemic, there was a signifcant drop in the number of death penalty cases decided by the appellate courts as well. High Courts across the country decided 30 cases, with the death sentence being confrmed in three cases and commuted in 17 cases. Five cases were remitted and fve resulted in acquittals. The Supreme Court passed judgments in multiple proceedings in a total of fve cases with one case resulting in the execution of four convicts. Two of these fve cases involved the ofence of rape and murder, two involved kidnapping with murder and one involved murder simpliciter.
In 2020, the proportion of death sentences imposed by trial courts for crimes involving sexual ofences was the highest in fve years at 65%, an increase of 11.54% since 2019. In particular, in 48% of cases involving sexual violence, the victims were below the age of 12, with 18% of such cases having adult victims. It would appear that sexual violence, particularly child rape, is increasingly defning the enforcement of the death penalty in India.
Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar were executed on 20th March 2020 for the gangrape and murder of a woman in Delhi in December 2012. The last execution prior to this was the execution of Yakub Memon in July 2015.
The Maharashtra Cabinet approved a Bill to introduce death penalty for non- homicidal rape of adult women and acid attacks, which has been referred to a joint select committee of the Legislative Assembly. The Andhra Pradesh legislature passed an amended version of a similar bill, frst introduced in December 2019, with the death penalty clause for such ofences since excluded. The bill is now awaiting Presidential assent. These proposed laws represent the continued legislative expansion of the death penalty for non-homicide ofences that began with amendments to the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act in 2018 and 2019 respectively.
8 2020 saw the highest proportion of sexual violence cases in fve years, with 65% of the total death sentences imposed by trial courts involving cases of sexual violence.
Executions were carried out in India after a gap of four years. Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar were executed on 20th March 2020 in Tihar Jail for the gangrape and murder of a young woman in December 2012.
A Bill introducing the death penalty for the non-homicidal rape of adult women and acid attacks was approved by the Maharashtra Cabinet and is pending consideration by a joint select committee. The Andhra Pradesh legislature passed a revised version of a similar bill with the death penalty clause for similar ofences since excluded, now awaiting Presidential assent.
9 CUMULATIVE FIGURES ON PERSONS SENTENCED TO DEATH
Prisoners Sentenced to Death 404 as on 31st December 20201
Prisoners Sentenced to Death 378 as on 31st December 2019
Prisoners Sentenced to Death 426 as on 31st December 2018
Prisoners Sentenced to Death 366 as on 31st December 2017
Prisoners Sentenced to Death 400 as on 31st December 2016
4 PERSONS WERE EXECUTED ON 20TH MARCH 2020. MUKESH, AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH, VINAY SHARMA AND PAWAN KUMAR.
1. The status of two prisoners sentenced to death in previous years remains unclear from publicly available records.
10 STATE-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS ON DEATH ROW 404 Prisoners Sentenced to Death as on 31st December 2020
13
Number of persons Uttarakhand currently on death row 10 Jammu and Kashmir 59 3 Himachal Pradesh 28 3 34 3 12 10 Punjab Manipur
Uttar Pradesh 28 Tripura
Haryana Jharkhand 12 Assam West Bengal West 6 Delhi Bihar
15 Rajasthan
37 Madhya Pradesh
6 Gujarat Odisha 3
Chhattisgarh 45 Maharashtra 7
Telangana 12
Andhra Pradesh 2 26 Karnataka
13 Tamil Nadu 17 Kerala
11 DEATH PENALTY CASES 20202
*Data represented in the form of prisoners (cases) Death Sentence SUPREME COURT Acquittals
Commutations
Confrmations
Remitted
103 4 0 0 (8) (3)
HIGH COURTS
3 22 5 8 (3) (17) (5) (5)
SESSIONS COURTS
764
2. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year. 3. This includes three separate curative and four post-mercy proceedings for the four prisoners who were ultimately executed in 2020. 4. One prisoner was sentenced to death in two different cases this year.
12 SESSIONS COURTS IN 2020
NUMBER OF DEATH SENTENCES IMPOSED BY SESSIONS COURTS5
2020 2019 2018 77 103 163
2017 2016 110 153
5. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year.
13 STATE-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF DEATH SENTENCES IMPOSED BY SESSIONS COURTS6
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh
04 13 14 08 06 13 12 15 20 33 05 11 22 06 14
Karnataka West Bengal Jharkhand
05 11 15 02 04 09 08 05 07 36 05 08 09 03 03
Maharashtra Bihar Odisha
04 07 16 22 13 03 07 05 11 22 00 05 09 00 00
Assam Kerala Tamil Nadu
03 04 06 00 00 00 04 05 02 04 06 03 12 13 03
6. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year.
14 77 103 163 110 153
Uttarakhand Punjab Gujarat
00 02 07 01 01 02 02 04 06 00 03 02 03 00 03
Chhattisgarh Telangana Manipur
00 01 03 01 01 06 01 02 00 06 01 01 01 00 00
Tripura Andhra Pradesh Himachal Pradesh
02 01 00 00 00 03 00 04 01 00 00 00 03 00 00
Haryana Delhi Jammu and Kashmir
02 00 02 06 02 01 00 01 00 02 00 00 00 01 00
15 NATURE OF OFFENCES FOR THOSE SENTENCED TO DEATH BY SESSIONS COURTS7
NUMBER OF DEATH SENTENCES IMPOSED BY SESSIONS COURTS IN 20208 MURDER INVOLVING MURDER INVOLVING OFFENCES SEXUAL SIMPLICITER MURDER OFFENCES TERROR 46 55 52 41 27 24 34 70 51 90 00 08 05 05 05
20209
2019
201810
201711
2016
7. Due to several changes in the process of classification of cases based on the nature of offence, the numbers differ significantly from previous years. We have specified the changes at the end of the report. 8. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year. 9. In one case involving one prisoner, the details of the nature of offence is unavailable. 10. In one case involving one prisoner, the details of the nature of offence is unavailable. 11. In one case involving one prisoner, the details of the nature of offence is unavailable.
16 77 103 163 110 153 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 DACOITY WITH DACOITY MURDER KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER CHILD RAPE WITHOUT MURDER OFFENCES DRUG 00 00 03 01 04 02 06 18 11 26 0412 00 1413 00 00 00 00 00 00 01
12. In one case involving one prisoner, the death sentence was erroneously imposed under section 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a minor aged 12 years old. This provision does not allow the imposition of the death penalty. 13. In one case involving four prisoners, the death sentence was erroneously imposed under section 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a minor aged 15 years old. This provision does not allow the imposition of the death penalty. Due to this error, the High Court subsequently remitted the matter to the trial court to reconsider the sentence.
17 DEATH PENALTY IN CASES OF SEXUAL OFFENCES
In 2019, while the number of death sentences imposed were lower than the previous year, the proportion of these cases involving sexual ofences had increased considerably from previous years. This trend continues in 2020, with 65% or 50 out of 77 cases in which the death sentence was imposed in 2020 involving sexual ofences.
The proportion of cases of involving sexual offences out of the total death sentences imposed14
2016 17.64% (27 out of 153)
2017 37.27% (41 out of 110)
2018 41.10% (67 out of 163)
2019 53.39% (55 out of 103)
2020 64.93% (50 out of 77)
14. This data includes cases involving non-homicide rape of minors where the death sentence was imposed. If excluded, the percentages change to 17.64%, 37.27%, 32.51%, 53.39% and 59.74% for 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 respectively.
18 Age of Victim in Sexual Offences Cases where Death Sentences were imposed in 2020 50
Age of Victim Number of Cases
6%
Adult (Above 18) 18% 09 Homicide rape
Minor (Between 12-18) 16 Homicide rape
15 Minor (Between 12-18) 42% 1 Non-homicide rape
Below 12 32% 21 Homicide rape
Below 12 3 Non-homicide rape
2%
15. In one case involving one prisoner, the death sentence was erroneously imposed under section 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a minor aged 12 years old. This provision does not allow the imposition of the death penalty.
19 HIGH COURTS IN 202016
2020 2019
HIGH COURT CONFIRMATIONS 3 (3) 26 (15)
HIGH COURT COMMUTATIONS 22 (17) 58 (37)17
HIGH COURT ACQUITTALS 5 (5) 31 (17)18
REMITTED TO TRIAL COURTS BY HIGH COURTS 8 (5) 15 (7)
*Data represented in form of prisoners (cases)
16. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year. 17. Includes one case involving two prisoners, in which the High Court commuted the death sentence in a writ petition challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India. 18. One prisoner died before his case was confirmed by the High Court. One prisoner was declared a juvenile. 20 2018 2017 2016 23 (18) 11 (10) 16 (11)19 53 (35) 57 (38)20 57 (37) 28 (13) 36 (24) 19 (13) 10 (6) 10 (5) 11 (1)
19. Includes one case involving one prisoner, in which the High Court enhanced the sentence from life imprisonment to death penalty. 20. In five cases, involving five prisoners, the High Court acquitted the prisoners of the charge carrying the death penalty, which resulted in a reduced sentence for the prisoners.
21 NATURE OF OFFENCE AT THE HIGH COURT IN 202021
NATURE OF OFFENCE IN CONFIRMATIONS AND COMMUTATIONS BY THE HIGH COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN 2020
01 06 08 04 01
Commuted Confrmed
12 35 18 28 34 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
MURDER SIMPLICITER
00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00
00 01 00 00 00 00 00 06 00 00 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
DRUG OFFENCES CHILD RAPE WITHOUT MURDER
*Data represented in form of prisoners (cases)
21. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year.
22 245 79 Commuted Confirmed
02 16 15 04 0723 00 02 00 02 04
10 1422 18 17 11 00 06 10 06 12 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
MURDER INVOLVING SEXUAL OFFENCES KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER
00 00 00 01 04 00 01 00 00 00
00 00 01 06 00 00 00 00 00 00 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
DACOITY WITH MURDER TERROR OFFENCES
22. This data excludes one case involving two prisoners in which the High Court commuted the death sentence in a writ petition challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India. 23. Includes one case of the High Court enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death penalty.
23 SENTENCE IMPOSED BY HIGH COURTS ON COMMUTATION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE24
04 28 31 39 20 03 02 08 01 06 08 05 04 02 04
2020
2019
2018
201725
201626
LIFE IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT (ELIGIBLE FOR REMISSION OF 20 YEARS OF 25 YEARS AFTER 14 YEARS)
24. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year. 25. In two cases, involving two prisoners, the High Court acquitted the prisoners of the charge carrying the death penalty, which therefore resulted in a reduced sentence for the prisoners. They have been excluded from this data. 26. Information is not available in two cases due to the unavailability of judgments.
24 22 58 53 57 57 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
01 06 03 05 03 01 0327 00 02 00 00 00 00 01 00 05 14 07 05 22
FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT IMPRISONMENT FOR THE REST OF OF 30 YEARS OF 35 YEARS OF 40 YEARS NATURAL LIFE (INELIGIBLE FOR REMISSION)
27. This data includes one case involving two prisoners where the High Court commuted the death sentence in a writ petition challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India.
25 HIGH COURT CONFIRMATIONS IN 2020 03 03 No. of Persons No. of Cases
No. of Persons No. of Cases Court Coram Nature of Ofence Date of Judgment
Rajasthan Chhattisgarh Uttarakhand 01 01 01 01 01 01
Jaipur Bench
Justices Sabina and Chandra Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra Justices Alok Singh and Kumar Songara and Gautam Chourdiya Ravindra Maithani State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Singh @ In Reference State of Chattisgarh through State of Uttarakhand v. Jai Prakash Mahaveer Police Station Khursipar, Durg District v. 07.01.2020 Ram Sona and Ors. 07.08.2020 30.01.2020 Murder involving Sexual Ofences Murder Simpliciter Murder involving Sexual Ofences
26 HIGH COURT COMMUTATIONS IN 2020 22 17 No. of Persons No. of Cases
No. of Persons No. of Cases Court Coram Nature of Ofence Date of Judgment
Sentence Imposed on Commutation of the Death Sentence
Haryana (Punjab and Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Haryana High Court)
02 02 02 02 03 02 Jabalpur Bench Jaipur Bench
Justices Sujoy Paul and Mohd. Justices Sabina and Chandra Fahim Anwar Justices Daya Chaudhary and Kumar Songara Surinder Gupta State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak @ State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chand Mali Nanhu Kirar State of Haryana v. Pushpa S/o Pyar Chand @ Pyare Lal 13.02.2020 20.02.2020 20.07.2020 Murder Simpliciter Murder involving Sexual Ofences Murder Simpliciter Life imprisonment (eligible for Fixed term imprisonment of 35 Life imprisonment (eligible for remission after 14 years) years remission after 14 years)
Justices Rajiv Sharma and Indore Bench Justices Sabina and Prakash Gurvinder Gill Gupta Justices SC Sharma and State of Haryana v. Sunny State of Rajasthan v. Mastram @ Sallu S/o Shailendra Shukla Prabhulal, Lokesh S/o Babulal Meena 03.02.2020 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Honey @ Murder involving Sexual Ofences Kakku 28.07.2020 Fixed term imprisonment of 20 03.03.2020 Murder involving Sexual Ofences years Murder involving Sexual Ofences Life imprisonment (eligible for remission after 14 years) Imprisonment for rest of natural life (ineligible for remission)
27 Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Karnataka 02 02 01 01 01 01
Allahabad Bench Dharwad Bench Justices Pritinker Diwaker and Justices C. Praveen Kumar and Justices BA Patil and MG Uma Raj Beer Singh K. Suresh Reddy Hanifsab S/o Hazarathsab Kulmi v. State Najeem Miyan v. State of Uttar Pradesh Patan Mohammad Raf v. State of Andhra of Karnataka 06.03.2020 Pradesh 24.07.2020 29.05.2020 Murder involving Sexual Ofences Murder Simpliciter Murder involving Sexual Ofences Imprisonment for rest of natural Imprisonment for rest of natural life (ineligible for remission) Imprisonment for rest of natural life (ineligible for remission) life (ineligible for remission)
Justices Pankaj Mithal and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Mouni v. State of U.P. Assam (Gauhati High Odisha 14.05.2020 Court) Murder involving Sexual Ofences 01 01 01 01 Fixed term imprisonment of 25 years
Justices Suman Shyam and Justices SK Mishra and AK Hitesh Kumar Sarma Mishra Noliram Kro v. State of Assam State of Odisha v. Laba @ Kalia Manna 22.04.2020 02.11.2020 Murder Simpliciter Murder involving Sexual Ofences Imprisonment for rest of natural Life imprisonment (eligible for life (ineligible for remission) remission after 14 years)
28 Tripura Tamil Nadu West Bengal 01 01 05 01 01 01
The Chief Justice Akil Kureshi Madras Bench Kolkata Bench and Justice Arindam Lodh Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, Justices M. Sathyanarayanan Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Dharamnagar v. State of Tripura and and M. Nirmal Kumar Suvra Ghosh Sanjoy Tanti @ Sanju Chinnaswamy and Ors. v. The Deputy State of West Bengal v. Ustab Ali 25.02.2020 Superintendent of Police 06.03.2020 22.06.2020 Murder involving Sexual Ofences Murder Simpliciter Murder Simpliciter Fixed term imprisonment of 25 Fixed term imprisonment of 30 years Fixed term imprisonment of 25 years years
Maharashtra (Bombay Kerala High Court) 01 01 01 01 Justices A. Hariprasad and MR Aurangabad Bench Anitha State of Kerala v. Rajesh S/o Unnikrishnan Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Nair BU Debadwar State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Sitaram 17.09.2020 Pawar Murder Simpliciter 22.12.2020 Fixed term imprisonment of 25 Murder Simpliciter years Life imprisonment (eligible for remission after 14 years)
29 HIGH COURT ACQUITTALS IN 2020 05 05 No. of Persons No. of Cases
No. of Persons No. of Cases Court Coram Nature of Ofence Date of Judgment
Bihar Rajasthan Tamil Nadu 02 02 01 01 01 01
Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Jaipur Bench Madras Bench Justice S. Kumar Justices Sabina and Chandra Justices M. Sathyanarayanan The State of Bihar v. Niranjan @ Alakh Kumar Songara and M. Nirmal Kumar Deo Kumar State of Rajasthan v. Rajkumar @ Chinnaswamy and Ors. v. The Deputy 11.11.2020 Dharmendra S/o Abhay Singh Superintendent of Police Murder Simpliciter 20.07.2020 22.06.2020 Murder involving Sexual Ofences Murder Simpliciter
Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar The State of Bihar v. Ajit Kumar, S/o Gautam Prasad Uttar Pradesh 20.10.2020 01 01 Murder involving Sexual Ofences
Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Vikas Kunvar Srivastav State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Gopal Saini 02.06.2020 Murder Simpliciter
30 HIGH COURT REMITTED CASES IN 2020 08 05 No. of Persons No. of Cases
No. of Persons No. of Cases Court Coram Nature of Ofence Date of Judgment
Bihar Rajasthan Karnataka 01 01 01 01 05 02
Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Jaipur Bench Sahi and Anil Kumar Upadhyay Justices Sabina and Chandra Justices Ravi Malimath and MI State of Bihar v. Onkar Nath Singh @ Kumar Songara Arun Sheru Singh State of Rajasthan v. Hariom Sharma S/o The Registrar General, High Court of 07.02.2020 Shri Kailash Chand Sharma Karnataka v. Munikrishna and Ors. Murder Simpliciter 21.07.2020 30.01.2020 Murder involving Sexual Ofences Child Rape without Murder
Odisha Justices BM Shyam Prasad and V. Srishnanda Sharanabasava @ Sharanu v. State of 01 01 Karnataka 12.08.2020
Justices SK Mishra and BP Kidnapping with Murder Routray Shrinibash @ Anama Dehury v. State of Odisha 23.12.2020 Murder involving Sexual Ofences
31 SUPREME COURT IN 202028 CRIMINAL APPEAL AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS29 2020 2019 SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATIONS30 6 (4) 6 (6)31
SUPREME COURT COMMUTATIONS 4 (3) 16 (16)
SUPREME COURT ACQUITTALS 0 11 (3)32
SUPREME COURT REMITTED CASES 0 2 (2)
*Data represented in form of prisoners (cases)
28. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year. 29. Including Criminal Appeals, Review Petitions or Curative Petitions connected to the original Criminal Appeal. 30. Includes multiple proceedings of the same case and set of prisoners across the five years, that is,
32 2018 2017 2016 3 (1) 8 (4)33 1 (1) 11 (11) 0 10 (8)34 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 0
the four prisoners who were ultimately executed in 2020. It includes one Criminal Appeal, involving four prisoners in 2017; one Review Petition, involving three prisoners in 2018; one Review Petition involving one prisoner in 2019, one common Curative Petition involving two prisoners, and two separate Curative Petitions involving the two other prisoners in 2020, all of which were dismissed by the Supreme Court. For this matter, the data counts each proceeding as a separate case. 31. Including one case, involving one prisoner, where the Criminal Appeal and Review Petition were dismissed in the same year. 32. In one case involving six prisoners, five were acquitted and one was found to be a juvenile. 33. Includes one case of the Supreme Court enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death penalty. 34. In two cases, involving two prisoners, the Supreme Court acquitted the prisoners of the charge carrying the death penalty, which therefore resulted in a reduced sentence for the prisoners.
33 OTHER DEATH SENTENCE PROCEEDINGS35
2020 2019
SUPREME COURT DISMISSALS 4 (4)36 0
SUPREME COURT COMMUTATIONS 0 1 (1)37
35. Including proceedings at the Supreme Court level that relate to the death penalty, which are unconnected to the original Criminal Appeal. The present data only includes Writ Petitions challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India. 36. Includes four separate writ proceedings challenging the rejection of the mercy petition for each of the four prisoners executed in 2020. 37. For one prisoner, the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India was heard along with the Review Petition, with both decided by the same judgment.
34 2018 2017 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 NATURE OF OFFENCE AT THE SUPREME COURT IN 202038,39,40
NATURE OF OFFENCE IN CONFIRMATIONS AND COMMUTATIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN 2020
Commuted Confrmed
02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 03 04 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
MURDER SIMPLICITER DRUG OFFENCES
38. Data is presented in terms of prisoners. The data counts each prisoner in each proceeding as well as the same prisoner across multiple proceedings separately. 39. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year. 40. Including Criminal Appeals, Review Petitions or Curative Petitions connected to the original Criminal Appeal.
36 41 24 Commuted Confirmed
04 0442 03 05 01 00 03 00 02 00
01 11 06 00 05 03 01 01 00 00 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
MURDER INVOLVING SEXUAL OFFENCES41 KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
CHILD RAPE WITHOUT MURDER DACOITY WITH MURDER
41. Includes multiple proceedings of the same case and set of prisoners across the five years, that is, the four prisoners who were ultimately executed in 2020. It includes one Criminal Appeal, involving four prisoners in 2017; one Review Petition, involving three prisoners in 2018; one Review Petition involving one prisoner in 2019 and four Curative Petitions involving four prisoners in 2020, all of which were dismissed by the Supreme Court. 42. This data includes one case, involving one prisoner, where the Criminal Appeal and Review Petition were dismissed in 2019.
37 SENTENCES IMPOSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCE43
CRIMINAL APPEAL AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS44 4 16 11 0 8 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
01 05 03 00 0645 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 03 00 00
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
LIFE IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT (ELIGIBLE FOR REMISSION OF 18 YEARS OF 20 YEARS AFTER 14 YEARS)
03 03 01 00 01 00 02 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 02 00 01
FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT IMPRISONMENT FOR THE REST OF OF 25 YEARS OF 30 YEARS OF 35 YEARS NATURAL LIFE (INELIGIBLE FOR REMISSION)
43. Courts were severely limited in functioning in 2020 because of the the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted the number of cases decided in the year. 44. Including Criminal Appeals, Review Petitions or Curative Petitions connected to the original Criminal Appeal. 45. In two cases, involving two prisoners, the Supreme Court acquitted the prisoners of the charge carrying the death penalty, which therefore resulted in a reduced sentence for the prisoner. They have been excluded from this data.
38 OTHER DEATH SENTENCE PROCEEDINGS46 0 1 0 0 0 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016
LIFE IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT (ELIGIBLE FOR REMISSION OF 18 YEARS OF 20 YEARS AFTER 14 YEARS)
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0147 00 00 00
FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT FIXED TERM IMPRISONMENT IMPRISONMENT FOR THE REST OF OF 25 YEARS OF 30 YEARS OF 35 YEARS NATURAL LIFE (INELIGIBLE FOR REMISSION)
46. Including proceedings at the Supreme Court level that relate to the death penalty, which are unconnected to the original Criminal Appeal. The present data only includes Writ Petitions challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India. 47. For one prisoner, the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India was heard along with the Review Petition, with both decided in the same judgment.
39 SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATIONS IN 2020 06 04 No. of Persons No. of Cases
CRIMINAL APPEAL AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS48
No. of Convicts Delhi 14.01.2020 Uttar Pradesh 23.01.2020
Curative Petition (Criminal) No. 6 of 2020 Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 632-633 of Case No. in Review Petition (Criminal) No. 570 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 804-805 of 2017 with Curative Petition (Criminal) Nos. 2015 with Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7-8 of 2020 in Review Petition (Criminal) Coram 635-636 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos. Nos. 672-673 of 2017 802-803 of 2015 Nature of Ofence 02 02 Justices NV Ramana, Arun Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices Mishra, Rohinton Fali Nariman, S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv R. Banumathi and Ashok Khanna Bhushan Saleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh with Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi with Shabnam v. State of Uttar Pradesh Vinay Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi Murder Simpliciter Murder involving Sexual Ofences
Delhi 30.01.2020 Delhi 03.02.2020
Curative Petition (Criminal) Nos. 10-11 of Curative Petition (Criminal) D.No. 8243 2020 in Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. of 2020 in Review Petition (Criminal) No. 602-603 of 2019 671 of 2017 01 01 Justices NV Ramana, Arun Justices NV Ramana, Arun Mishra, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Mishra, Rohinton Fali Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan Bhushan Akshay Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi Delhi Murder involving Sexual Murder involving Sexual Ofences Ofences
48. Including Criminal Appeals, Review Petitions or Curative Petitions connected to the original Criminal Appeal.
40 04 04 No. of Persons No. of Cases
OTHER DEATH SENTENCE PROCEEDINGS49
No. of Convicts Delhi 19.03.2020 Delhi 29.01.2020 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 121 of 2020 Writ Petition (Criminal) D. No. 3334 of 2020 Case No. Coram 01 01 Nature of Ofence Justices R. Banumathi, AS Justices AS Bopanna, R. Bopanna and Ashok Bhushan Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan Akshay Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi Delhi Murder involving Sexual Murder involving Sexual Ofences Ofences
Delhi 20.03.2020 Delhi 14.02.2020 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 122 of 2020 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 65 of 2020
01 01 Justices AS Bopanna, R. Justices AS Bopanna, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT Vinay Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. Delhi Murder involving Sexual Murder involving Sexual Ofences Ofences
49. Including proceedings at the Supreme Court level that relate to the death penalty, which are unconnected to the original Criminal Appeal. The present data only includes Writ Petitions challenging the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India.
41 SUPREME COURT COMMUTATIONS IN 2020 04 03 No. of Persons No. of Cases
CRIMINAL APPEAL AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS50
No. of Convicts Case No. Coram Nature of Ofence
Sentence Imposed on Commutation of the Death Sentence
Chhattisgarh 05.03.2020 Maharashtra 02.11.2020 Maharashtra 24.04.2020 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8682 Criminal Appeal Nos. 640-641 of 2016; of 2014; arising out of Criminal Appeal No. Criminal Appeal Nos. 763-764 of 2016 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2017 550 of 2013 01 01 02 Justices UU Lalit, Indu Justices Hemant Gupta, Indu Justices UU Lalit, Indira Malhotra and Krishna Murari Malhotra and UU Lalit Banerjee and MR Shah Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra Manoj Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra Chhattisgarh Kidnapping with Murder Murder involving Sexual Kidnapping with Murder Fixed term imprisonment of 25 Ofences Years Fixed term imprisonment of 25 Life imprisonment (eligible for years remission after 14 years)
50. Including Criminal Appeals, Review Petitions or Curative Petitions connected to the original Criminal Appeal.
42 ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN 2020
In 2020, the Supreme Court passed orders in fve death penalty cases. In three cases, death sentences imposed on Manoj Suryavanshi, Arvind Singh, Rajesh Daware and Shatrughna Baban Meshram were commuted to life imprisonment of varying terms.51 Death sentences imposed in two cases on Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Kumar and Akshay Kumar Singh as well as Shabnam and Saleem were confrmed in 2020. One of the two cases resulted in the execution of Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Kumar and Akshay Kumar Singh on 20th March 2020.
CONFIRMATIONS
Uttar Pradesh 23.01.2020 Saleem v. State of Uttar Pradesh with Shabnam v. State
Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 632-633 in of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015 with Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 635-636 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 804-805 of 2015 Case History
Chief Justice SA Bobde and Shabnam and Saleem were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Amroha for the murder Justices S Abdul Nazeer and of seven persons of Shabnam’s family under sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Sanjiv Khanna Penal Code. They were sentenced to death by the same court on 15th July 2010. The sentence was confrmed by a division bench of the High Court of Allahabad comprising Justices Amar Saran and SC Agarwal on 26th April 2013.
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals fled by the appellants. The arguments before the Supreme Court were restricted to the issue of the sentence imposed. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that since the case relied on circumstantial evidence (such as forensic reports and call records of the appellants) and no eyewitness accounts had been relied on, the death sentence should not have been imposed. Additionally, the young age of the appellants, their mental stress caused due to the opposition of their family to their marriage and Shabnam’s pregnancy at the time of commission of the crime were argued as mitigating circumstances.
51. Shatrughna Baban Meshram was sentenced to life imprisonment. Manoj Suryawanshi, Arvind Singh and Rajesh Daware were sentenced to life without remission for 25 years.
43 The Court held that while determining the sentence between life imprisonment and death, a link between contemporary community values and the penal system ought to be made. In doing so, the evolving standards of public morality and consciousness must be looked at. It was held that the crime of parricide had shaken the society. In addition, the Court considered numerous agravating factors- the victims being the family members of Shabnam, the magnitude, motive for and manner of the commission of the crime, and the remorseless attitude of Shabnam and Saleem. The Court dismissed mitigating factors of young age and Shabnam’s pregnancy. It was held that the extreme culpability in this case merited the sentence of death, which would be an appropriate punishment. The appeal was dismissed.
Supreme Court (Review Petition)
The review petition was restricted to examining the sentence imposed. The Court, while confrming the sentence, held that the death sentence could not be overturned on grounds raised including that of the petitioners such as earning higher academic qualifcation, learning embroidery or tailoring skills and otherwise observing good conduct in jail. The Court observed that Shabnam committed the ofence despite being well educated and being employed as a teacher. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record, the standard for consideration of review petitions by the Supreme Court.
44 COMMUTATIONS
Chhattisgarh 05.03.2020 Manoj Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8682 of 2014 Case History
Justices UU Lalit, Indira Manoj Suryavanshi was convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnapping Banerjee and MR Shah and murder of three children under sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Author: Justice MR Shah Code by Upper Sessions Judge, Ms. Neeta Arora on 4th May 2013. The sentence was confrmed by a division bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh comprising Justices Yatindra Singh and Pritinker Diwaker on 8th August 2013.
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal)
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of the accused, sentencing him to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for 25 years. The argument that the sentence merited a commutation as it was a case of ‘same day sentencing,’ i.e., the conviction and sentencing orders were passed on the same day, thereby violating section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was rejected. Reliance was placed on Accused X v. State of Maharashtra52 to hold that the requirement under the provision would be sufciently complied with as long as the accused had been given a sufcient opportunity to present their case on sentencing. The Court added that there was no proposition of law mandating that a sentence would be vitiated if the sentence was imposed on the same day as the conviction.
The Court considered mitigating factors such as extreme mental disturbance caused to the accused, good conduct in prison and lack of criminal antecedents. It placed emphasis on the appellant being in a state of extreme mental disturbance at the time of commission of the crime. These mitigating factors collectively outweighed the sole agravating factor- brutality of the ofence. Though the conviction under sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code was sustained, the death sentence was converted into a sentence of life imprisonment. The Court clarifed that ‘life’ meant the end of the natural life of the prisoner with no possibility of remission till the prisoner completed 25 years of imprisonment.
Maharashtra 24.04.2020 Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal Nos. 640-641 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2017 Case History
Justices UU Lalit, Indu Arvind Singh and Rajesh Daware were convicted for kidnapping and murder of a Malhotra and Hemant Gupta child under sections 364A, 302, 201 and 120-B read 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Author: Justice Hemant Gupta Mr. KK Sonawane, Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 30th January 2016. Death sentences were imposed on both accused under sections 364A and 302 by the same court on
52. (2019) 7 SCC 1
45 4th February 2016. On 5th May 2016, the conviction and sentence was confrmed by a division bench of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) comprising Justices BR Gavai and Swapna Joshi.
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal)
The Supreme Court, in the criminal appeal, upheld the conviction but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court did not consider the argument that a higher standard of proof known as ‘residual doubt,’ which was over and above the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ ought to be imposed in this case. Young age of the accused and the absence of criminal antecedents were also not considered as mitigating factors. However, the Court observed that the accused had the potential to reform and rehabilitate. It further held that the case was not a ‘rarest of rare’ case which had shocked the collective conscience of the community and therefore did not merit the death sentence. Death sentences imposed on Arvind Singh and Rajesh Daware were commuted to life imprisonment, without the possibility of remission for 25 years of imprisonment.
Maharashtra 02.11.2020 Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 763-764 of 2016 Case History
Justices UU Lalit, Indu Shatrughna Baban Meshram was convicted and sentenced to death by Mr. AC Malhotra and Krishna Murari Chaphale, Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal for the rape murder of his neice Author: Justice UU Lalit under sections 376 (1) and (2), 376A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Ofences (POCSO) Act on 14th August 2015. A division bench of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur bench) comprising Justices BR Gavai and Prasanna B. Varale confrmed the sentence on 12th October 2015.
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal)
On appeal, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. However, the conviction was sustained. Though the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence (such as the post mortem report and the DNA analysis report), the Court held that the circumstances establishing the complicity of the appellant-accused stood proved beyond reasonable doubt and excluded all other hypotheses other than the guilt of the accused.
Since the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court on the same day on which he had been convicted, the defence argued that this violated section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting a commutation of the death sentence. While rejecting this argument, the Court relied on Dagdu v. State of
46 Maharashtra53 and held that adequate and sufcient opportunity had been aforded to the accused to place all relevant material on record and the plea that his rights under Section 235(2) had been violated was untenable. The Court further examined the possibility of imposing the death sentence in a case that relied solely on circumstantial evidence. The defence argued that since the case relied on circumstantial evidence, applicability of “residual doubt” in this case was rejected. The court held that the theory of residual doubt would not be applicable in cases in which the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence as the burden in such cases is already of a very high magnitude. However, it held that though the circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt was unimpeachable, sentences alternate to the death penalty had not been foreclosed.
The Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, observing that death sentences are rarely given for convictions under the “fourthly” clause to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with culpable homicide amounting to murder without there being any intention to murder. The death sentence imposed for an ofence under section 376A for commiting rape that resulted in murder was also converted to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years stating that the provision had been enacted a few days before the crime was committed.
53. (1977) 3 SCC 68
47 MERCY PETITIONS54
Recommendation Decision by the Prisoner (State) Outcome by MHA President
Mukesh (Delhi) 16/01/2020 17/01/2020 Rejected
Vinay Sharma (Delhi) 31/01/2020 01/02/2020 Rejected
Akshay Kumar Singh (Delhi) 02/02/2020 05/02/2020 Rejected
Pawan Kumar (Delhi) 03/03/2020 04/03/2020 Rejected
Sanjay (Uttar Pradesh) 13/07/2020 16/07/2020 Rejected
54. The information presented in this section is as per data made available by the President’s Secretariat.
48 DEATH WARRANT
Four death warrants were issued against Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar who were ultimately executed on March 20th, 2020. We discuss the details of the proceedings in which the warrants were issued and the grounds for the stays issued subsequently (See Executions 2020, Death Warrants).
Court Issuing Date of Issuing Scheduled Date Date of Stay Prisoner Name Death Warrant Death Warrant of Execution Order
Mr. Satish Arora, 7/1/2020 22/1/2020 17/1/2020 Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi
Mr. Satish Arora, 17/1/2020 1/2/2020 31/1/2020 Additional Sessions Mukesh Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi Akshay Kumar Singh Mr. Dharmender 17/2/2020 3/3/2020 2/3/2020 Vinay Sharma Rana, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala Pawan Kumar House Court, New Delhi
Mr. Dharmender 5/3/2020 20/3/2020 Not applicable. Rana, Additional Execution Sessions Judge, Patiala carried out on House Court, New 20/03/2020. Delhi
49 50 EXECUTIONS 2020
Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar were executed on 20th March 2020. The last execution prior to this was the execution of Yakub Memon in July 2015.
India has executed eight persons since 2000:
Dhananjoy Chatterjee (August 2004) Ajmal Kasab (November 2012) Afzal Guru (February 2013) Yakub Memon (July 2015) Mukesh (March 2020) Akshay Kumar Singh (March 2020) Vinay Sharma (March 2020) Pawan Kumar (March 2020)
51 CASE TIMELINE
10.09.2013 A Special Fast Track Court convicted 09.07.2018 16.12.2012 Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Review Petitions fled Singh, Vinay Sharma before the Supreme A young woman and Pawan Kumar of Court by Mukesh, Vinay was gangraped and rape and murder. Sharma and Pawan murdered in Delhi. Kumar were dismissed. 17.01.2020 Mercy petition fled 13.03.2014 by Mukesh before A division bench of the the President of High Court of Delhi, India was rejected. 11.03.2013 Hon’ble Justices Reva Khetrapal and Pratibha One of the 07.01.2020 The trial court issued Rani, confrmed accused, Ram The trial court a second death the death sentence Singh, was found issued a death warrant, setting the imposed on Mukesh, dead in prison, warrant, setting execution for 1st Akshay Kumar Singh, deemed to be a the execution February 2020. Vinay Sharma and case of suicide. for 22nd Pawan Kumar. January 2020. 2012
18.12.2019 17.12.2012 – 13.09.2013 Review Petition 21.12.2012 The court fled by Akshay Six men were imposed the Kumar Singh was arrested for the death sentence on dismissed by the ofence: Ram Mukesh, Akshay Supreme Court. Singh, Mukesh, Kumar Singh, Akshay Kumar Vinay Sharma and 14.01.2020 Singh, Vinay Pawan Kumar. 05.05.2017 Curative Petitions Sharma, Pawan The three-judge fled by Mukesh and Kumar and one bench of the Vinay Sharma were accused who was Supreme Court, dismissed by the subsequently found Hon’ble Justices Supreme Court. to be a juvenile. 31.08.2013 Dipak Misra, Ashok One accused was Bhushan and R. declared a juvenile and Banumathi, upheld sentenced according the death sentence to the procedure imposed on Mukesh, prescribed by the law. Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar.
52 05.03.2020 30.01.2020 The trial court issued the fourth death Curative Petition fled warrant, setting the by Akshay Kumar execution for 20th Singh was dismissed by March 2020. the Supreme Court. 14.02.2020 20.03.2020 The writ fled by Vinay The writ fled by Pawan Sharma challenging Kumar challenging the the rejection of mercy rejection of the second mercy petition was dismissed petition was dismissed at 2:30 by the Supreme Court. am by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court, Hon’ble 02.03.2020 Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok 01.02.2020 Bhushan and AS Bopanna. Curative Petition Mercy petition fled by Pawan fled by Vinay Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Kumar was Sharma before Singh, Vinay Sharma and dismissed by the the President Pawan Kumar were executed Supreme Court. of India was at 5:30 am in Tihar Jail. rejected. 2020
31.01.2020 17.02.2020 19.03.2020 The trial court The trial court Second mercy petitions passed an order issued a third fled by both Akshay Kumar deferring the 05.02.2020 death warrant, Singh and Pawan Kumar executions Mercy petition fled setting the before the President of India until the by Akshay Kumar execution for were rejected. prisoners had Singh before the 3rd March 2020. exhausted legal President of India The writ fled by Akshay remedies. was rejected. Kumar Singh challenging the rejection of the second The High Court mercy petition was dismissed 29.01.2020 of Delhi held that by the Supreme Court. The writ fled Mukesh, Akshay by Mukesh Kumar Singh, Vinay 04.03.2020 challenging the Sharma and Pawan Mercy petition rejection of mercy Kumar could not be fled by Pawan petition was executed separately Kumar before the dismissed by the and directed them President of India Supreme Court. to exhaust their was rejected. legal remedies within seven days.
53 PRIOR CASE HISTORY
Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar were sentenced to death for the gangrape and murder of a woman in Delhi on 16th December 2012. The public outrage surrounding the case precipitated reforms to substantive and procedural law on sexual violence in India in the form of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, which introduced the death penalty for repeat sexual ofenders among other changes. The 2013 Amendment marked the beginning of the ever increasing scope of the death penalty for sexual violence in India.
While two others were arrested in the case, Ram Singh reportedly took his own life in prison before the completion of the trial and the other was declared a juvenile and given a three year sentence in accordance with the procedure applicable to children in confict with the law.
Over the course of proceedings at the trial court, High Court and Supreme Court, Mr. AP Singh represented Akshay Kumar Singh and Vinay Sharma; and Mr. ML Sharma represented Mukesh and Pawan Kumar.
Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar were convicted by a Special Fast Track Court in Saket, Delhi on 10th September 2013 and were sentenced to death on 13th September 2013. The conviction and sentence was upheld by the Delhi High Court on 13th March 2014.
During the Criminal Appeal proceedings, by order dated 8th April, 2016, the Supreme Court appointed two Senior Advocates as amicus curiae, Mr. Raju Ramachandran and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, in light of the ‘gravity of the matter’. Noting serious lapses in the sentencing by the trial court and the High Court, the Supreme Court, by order dated 3rd February 2017, directed the advocates to present mitigation afdavits and reconsidered the question of sentence at this stage. The conviction and sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court of India on 5th May 2017.
The Review Petitions of Vinay Sharma, Pawan Kumar and Mukesh, were dismissed on 9th July 2018. The Review Petition of Akshay Kumar Singh, was dismissed on 18th December 2019.
54 Curative Petitions
The Supreme Court rejected the Curative Petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh on 14th January 2020; of Akshay Kumar Singh on 30th January 2020 and of Pawan Kumar on 2nd March 2020. All three petitions were dismissed in circulation, with the Court rejecting the application for oral hearing and refusing to stay the execution of the death sentence.
Mercy Petitions
Mukesh’s mercy petition, which was fled on 14th January 2020,55 was rejected on 17th January 2020, following a recommendation by the Ministry of Home Afairs (MHA) on 16th January 2020. Vinay Sharma’s mercy petition, which was fled on 29th January 2020,56 was rejected on 1st February 2020, following a recommendation by the MHA on 31st January 2020. Pawan Kumar’s mercy petition, which was fled on 2nd March 2020,57 was rejected on 4th March 2020, following a recommendation by the MHA on 3rd March 2020. He also fled a second mercy petition on 18th March 2020. Akshay Kumar Singh sent a mercy petition on 31st January 2020, which was incomplete, and then sent the complete mercy petition on 18th March 2020,58 which was rejected on 19th March 2020.
To set these decisions in context, for 28 prisoners for whom information on the date of fling mercy petition was available, the mercy petition was ultimately rejected by the President an average of 7 years after it was fled. Further, excluding the one other mercy petition decided in 2020, the President took an average of 3.6 years to decide on the mercy petitions of 28 prisoners59 after the frst recommendation from the Ministry of Home Afairs, as per data released by the President’s Secretariat.
55. This information has been sourced from Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) D No. 3334 of 2020. 56. This information has been sourced from Vinay Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 65 of 2020. 57. This information has been sourced from Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 122 of 2020. 58. This information has been sourced from Akshay Kumar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 121 of 2020. 59. While there is an overlap, this is not the same set of 28 prisoners for whom information on filing is available.
55 Post-Mercy Writ Proceedings
Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar fled separate writ petitions before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the rejection of their mercy petitions. Mukesh was represented in these proceedings by Ms. Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate. Mukesh’s writ was rejected on 29th January 2020. Vinay Sharma’s writ was rejected on 14th February 2020. Akshay Kumar Singh’s writ was rejected on 19th March 2020. Pawan Kumar’s writ was rejected on 20th March 2020. In all four proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the decision by the President of India on the mercy petition followed established procedure and involved consideration of relevant materials. Particularly, the Court held that a constitutional authority is presumed to have acted carefully after considering all aspects, and there were no grounds to challenge this presumption in any of the applications. In addition, across the four proceedings the Supreme Court held that there were pre-established grounds for the judicial review of the order rejecting the mercy petition, which did not include torture or treatment in prison faced by the petitioner. In addition, with regard to Pawan Kumar’s petition, the Court held that the question of juvenility of the convict had been determined with fnality by the Courts and was no longer subject to review.
Death Warrants
In this case, four death warrants were issued against Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar, before they were ultimately executed on 20th March 2020. The court appointed Ms. Vrinda Grover, Senior Advocate as an amicus curiae to assist the trial court during the warrant proceedings. In light of the absence of any pending petitions, on 7th January 2020 the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court issued a death warrant against Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar fxing the date of the execution as 22nd January 2020.
On 17th January 2020, the trial court revised the date of execution to 1st February 2020. This was in light of the rejection of the mercy petition of Mukesh on the same date. The Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India60 and Rule Number 858 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 require a minimum period of 14 days between the receipt of the communication of the rejection of the mercy petition and the scheduled date of execution to enable the prisoner sentenced to death to prepare themselves, settle their afairs, meet family members or avail any judicial
60. (2014) 3 SCC 1
56 remedy. On 31st January 2020, the trial court stayed the execution in light of the pendency of the mercy petition of Vinay Sharma.
The state argued before the Delhi High Court that the prisoners could be executed separately, whenever each prisoner had exhausted the legal remedies they were entitled to. In these proceedings, Mukesh was represented by Ms. Rebecca John, Senior Advocate and Ms. Vrinda Grover. On 5th February 2020, the Delhi High Court upheld the postponement of the execution for all convicts, despite the exhaustion of legal remedies by Mukesh. Relying on Supreme Court decisions,61 the Court emphasised that the convicts were exercising their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that it would be unjust to execute the death sentence against only one convict. The Court held that the commutation of the sentence of a co-accused would constitute a change in circumstances that would entitle the remaining co-accused to fle a second mercy petition.62
On 17th February 2020 a third death warrant was issued scheduling the execution for 3rd March 2020. By order dated 2nd March 2020, the trial court deferred the execution in light of the pending mercy petitions from Akshay Kumar Singh and Vinay Sharma. The court emphasised the protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India continues to protect convicts till their last breath, particularly guaranteeing their right to exercise all remedies available to them. The court highlighted the unjustness of executing any convict without the opportunity to exhaust all legal remedies.
On 5th March 2020, the trial court issued the fourth death warrant scheduling the execution for 20th March 2020. On 20th March at 12 am, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking a stay on the execution. At 5.30 am, Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar were executed.
61. Sher Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 344, and Harbans Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 101. 62. As allowed by Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 129 of 2015 decided on 29.07.2015.58.
57 LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Maharashtra Shakti Criminal Law (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2020 The Maharashtra Cabinet has approved two bills: the ‘Special Courts and Machinery for the Implementation of Shakti Act 2020’ and the ‘Maharashtra Shakti Criminal Law (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2020’, which introduce the death penalty for non-homicidal rape and acid attack by amending provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences (POCSO) Act. In addition, the Bills increase the punishment for various ofences relating to sexual violence and sets out expedited processes, limiting investigation to 15 days, and trial and disposal of the case to 45 days from fling of the chargesheet. The bills are now pending before a joint select committee of the state Legislative Assembly.
The ‘Andhra Pradesh Disha (Special Courts for Specifed Ofences against Women and Children) Bill 2020’ was passed by the Andhra Pradesh legislature on 4th December 2020. This was a revised version of the Bill passed in 2019, reportedly due to the latter’s failure to receive the President’s assent. This Bill requires the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India to come into force. Reportedly, this Bill did not carry the death penalty provisions from the 2019 Bill.
58 OBSERVATIONS
The COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted the functioning of the courts, with a signifcant drop in the number of death sentences imposed by trial courts and the number of death penalty cases decided by appellate courts. More than 60% of the death sentences imposed by trial courts this year were imposed before the frst lockdown was announced. Yet, the 48 death sentences imposed within the frst three months of the year, amounting to nearly 50% of last year’s total, indicate that the total would likely have been much higher in the absence of the pandemic.
2020 also demonstrated the extensive public clamor for the death penalty for sexual ofenders, visible with the outcry in support of the executions of Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar in March 2020. Despite the strong and repeated calls to expedite the executions of Mukesh, Akshay Kumar Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar, it was admirable to see the Delhi district judiciary protect their rights to exhaust all legal remedies till the very end, ensuring compliance with the law.
In line with the strong public sentiment to execute sexual ofenders, 2020 also saw an increasing legislative reliance on the death penalty for sexual ofences with the proposed state amendments to the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act.
The public as well as legislative discourse appears to have had an impact on the implementation of the death penalty in India, with the proportion of death sentences imposed in sexual violence cases now the highest in 5 years, at 65%. It is also important to note that with the introduction of the death penalty for child rape in 2018, the proportion of death sentence cases involving rape of children now constitutes 82% of the death sentences imposed for all sexual ofences in 2020.
The changing realities of the death penalty in India highlight the necessity of robust empirical research that helps assess the impact of various measures and design well-considered reform.
59 CORRECTIONS TO ANNUAL STATISTICS
Due to signifcant changes in the process of recording and classifying information on death penalty cases this year, there are several changes in the statistics as presented in previous years, particularly in the nature of ofence data. A detailed list of these changes and corrections is specifed below.
2019 • 3 additional prisoners, from Karnataka, Manipur and Karnataka respectively, were identifed as having a death sentence imposed by trial courts in 2019 for ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’, ‘Murder Simpliciter’, and ‘Kidnapping with Murder’ respectively. • Due to revised categorisation of ofences, the death sentences imposed by the trial court on 2 prisoners for ‘Terror Ofences’ and ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ have been now reclassifed as ‘Murder Simpliciter’. • The death sentence imposed by the trial court on 4 prisoners erroneously classifed as ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ has now been reclassifed as ‘Murder Simpliciter’. • Due to a typographical error, the ofence of ‘Dacoity with Murder’ erroneously included 6 additional death sentences. • 2 additional prisoners, from Kerala and Gujarat and convicted of ‘Murder Simpliciter’ and ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ respectively, were identifed as having a death sentence confrmed by High Courts in 2019. • Due to revised categorisation of ofences, the death sentences confrmed by High Courts for 2 prisoners for ‘Murder Simpliciter’ have now been reclassifed as ‘Kidnapping with Murder’. • 1 case of a commutation by the High Court has now been reclassifed as a confrmation case. 1 case of an acquittal by the High Court has now been excluded as the prisoner died during the course of the proceedings. • The sentences on commutation imposed by the Supreme Court in 2 cases involving 2 prisoners erroneously classifed as ‘Life imprisonment (eligible for remission after 14 years)’ have now been reclassifed as ‘Imprisonment for the Rest of Natural Life (ineligible for remission)’.
60 2018 • 2 additional prisoners, from Haryana and Karnataka respectively, were identifed as having a death sentence imposed by trial courts in 2018 for ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ and ‘Murder Simpliciter’. • The death sentence imposed on 1 prisoner by the trial court erroneously classifed as ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ has now been reclassifed as ‘Murder Simpliciter’. • Due to revised categorisation of ofences, the death sentences imposed by the trial courts on 14 prisoners for ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ have now been reclassifed as ‘Child Rape without Murder’. 2017 • The death sentences imposed by trial courts on 2 prisoners from Uttar Pradesh in one case involving the ofence of ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ were erroneously excluded from the 2017 Report. • The death sentences imposed by trial courts on 4 prisoners erroneously classifed as ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ and on 3 prisoners erroneously classifed as ‘Kidnapping with Murder’ have now all been reclassifed as ‘Murder Simpliciter’. 2016 • 3 additional prisoners, from Karnataka, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh respectively, were identifed as having a death sentence imposed by trial courts in 2016 for ‘Murder Simpliciter’. • 2 death sentences for ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences imposed by trial courts on 1 prisoner from Uttar Pradesh were erroneously excluded from previous reports. • Due to revised categorisation of ofences, the death sentences imposed by the trial courts on 7 prisoners for ‘Rioting with Murder’ and ‘Robbery with Murder’ have now been reclassifed as ‘Murder Simpliciter’. • 2 additional prisoners in 1 case, from Madhya Pradesh and convicted of ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’ were identifed as having a death sentence confrmed by High Courts in 2016. • One case of acquittal by the High Court has been excluded as the judgment was pronounced in 2015. • One case involving 1 prisoner erroneously included in the commutations by High Courts has been excluded. • The commutation by the Supreme Court of the death sentence of 1 prisoner, from Madhya Pradesh and convicted of ‘Murder involving Sexual Ofences’, in 2016 was erroneously excluded from previous reports.
61